Is shooting (a gun) a solution to every problem?

[Renew Deal]

Poll question: Is shooting (a gun) a solution to every problem?

This was asked somewhere else.

[DailyGrind51]

1. Only if someone has a gun pointed at you and you manage to get your shot off first.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Only if murdering someone/thing is the solution to every problem.

[polichick]

3. America's obsession with guns is pathological - and pathetic imo.

[Mojorabbit]

6. That certainly is your opinion

luckily you don't get to change the constitution. This woman loves to shoot at the range and finds nothing pathetic about it.

[polichick]

7. The framers of the Constitution never intended for every person to pack a gun...

...and the purpose was to form militias in the early days ~ the obsessiveness with which some Americans cling to that amendment and their guns at the expense of the whole society is absolutely pathetic. If you're not one of those, I'm not speaking of you.

[tanngrisnir3]

10. Nor did they not intend it. It wasn't an issue, as you're trying to frame it.

[polichick]

20. I think it's time for patriotic Americans (those who actually put the country first)...

...to start calling out groups like the gun lobby and the Israel lobby that make demands which threaten the security of the country as a whole ~ I can't think of two more selfish and less patriotic organizations than the NRA and AIPAC.

[tangent90]

22. Yeah those gun-totin' jews are the shits.

:eyes: :eyes:

[polichick]

23. What an ignorant response to a very serious issue.

[uppityperson]

24. "Israel lobby"="gun-totin' jews"? wtf?

I would like to post what I think of your comment but am too civil to do so.

[tangent90]

35. You apparently don't understand sarcasm.

What a pity.

[uppityperson]

39. thank you for clarifying (with an edit)

:sarcasm: works sometimes and thanks for the clarification, really.

Edited to add that there have, unfortunately, been posters who have expressed similar sentiments without being sarcastic. Hence the wtf.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

28. The most obvious way is their fight against the assault weapons ban...

btw, I'd also put those who insist on driving big-ass gas guzzlers in the selfish, unpatriotic category.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

31. It's a threat to planetary security, not just national. Connect the dots.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

34. Lol - you REALLY don't see how big-ass gas guzzlers threaten our security?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

38. Think bigger - you're thinking of national security only in the military sense...

My position is that it's time to call out people and groups who put their own narrow interests over the interests of the nation as a whole. This is easy stuff ~ any third grader can figure out how gas guzzlers threaten our "security." Any thinking adult should be able to see how groups like the NRA and AIPAC put their own interests first.

If you don't get it, I can't help you. THINKING isn't something anyone can make you do.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

44. I don't spoonfeed trolls - that's what you appear to be.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

48. I've spelled things out enough for a child - that's why you seem like a troll. See ya...

[Shakespeare]

84. He wasn't; but somebody got him banned anyway.

I happen to know this person IRL, and it's bullshit that he was banned. Fucking bullshit. Obama-voting, hardcore liberal who happens to believe in strong 2nd amendment rights. Hint: Obama's the same way. Tsk; a troll in the white house. The horror!

I happen to disagree with you, too--does that make ME a troll? Go on. I'll wait while you attempt to make the case for that.

[polichick]

102. I've never reported a post on this site, not even asshole posts like yours...

Perhaps the mods figure things out for themselves.


btw, the President has expressed support for the 2nd amendment AND for reinstating the assault weapons ban, which is also my position.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

[Tejas]

131. "reinstating the assault weapons ban"

Why do people keep wishing for a repeat of the 1994 elections?


out of ignorance?

selfish pride?

hate the Bill of Rights?

are they Republican moles?

[Shakespeare]

137. I don't give a good goddamn what you think of my post.

This place has become a joke lately; post after post afflicted with what can only be thought of as tragic black & whitism. Yours, for example, suggesting that all guns are a threat to national security. What utter absurdity. There was a 300+ post thread a week ago arguing that the military should be completely abolished. What a breathtakingly stupid suggestion. Far too many people posting here seem completely incapable of complex thought, and approach all subjects with hysterical extremism. It's just sad.

As for the assault weapons ban, what tanngrisnir was pointing out (and has also pointed out, by legions of other posters, in threads in the guns forum) is that the assault weapons ban is useless unless and until the law makes a clear distinction of what constitutes an assault weapon. Most people who are gung-ho about weapons bans have ZERO knowledge about guns of any kind, and make their arguments based sheerly on emotion. Such arguments can only--and should--fail utterly. I'm in favor of clearly defined and evenly enforced gun laws. Most of the laws on the books right now are neither. But to argue that all guns are a threat to national security? That's got to be one of the most boneheaded things I've ever read on this site.

As for the mods (and the admins)--no, they didn't figure anything out. I have more knowledge of what's going on in this specific situation than they do (because I happen to intimately know the poster we're talking about, and have read--literally--every single one of his posts); as for my knowledge of how things work on this site, not only have I been here since the beginning, I've also been a mod for multiple terms. I've invested more time, money and energy in this site than a lot of folks have. And what I've finally come away understanding, to my immense disappointment, is that the so-called rules on this site are in no way evenly applied. They don't even come CLOSE to enforcing them in an even-handed manner, and it makes the moderation of this entire site a joke. I can give example after very specific example to support that statement, by the way. Am I calling out the mods? The admins? Perhaps. But sadly, after all these years, I just don't care anymore. This was a last-straw moment for me, and I'm pretty much done here.

[Tejas]

140. yep!

"As for the assault weapons ban, what tanngrisnir was pointing out (and has also pointed out, by legions of other posters, in threads in the guns forum) is that the assault weapons ban is useless unless and until the law makes a clear distinction of what constitutes an assault weapon. Most people who are gung-ho about weapons bans have ZERO knowledge about guns of any kind, and make their arguments based sheerly on emotion. Such arguments can only--and should--fail utterly. I'm in favor of clearly defined and evenly enforced gun laws. Most of the laws on the books right now are neither. But to argue that all guns are a threat to national security? That's got to be one of the most boneheaded things I've ever read on this site."


Not that any of the antis will wake up and smell the coffee, but thanks just the same for putting it in print.







:toast:

[polichick]

147. Apparently the President doesn't know anything either - I'm glad he shares...

...my concerns for those needlessly gunned down rather than the views of the weapons enthusiasts on this site.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1


(If you weren't so reactionary you'd notice that NOBODY ever said that "all guns are a threat to national security.")

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

160. I <3 you

[uppityperson]

148. who was that? If is banned, is ok to mention name, otherwise would you please pm me?

you can write admin, or pm mods, and explain your reasoning why should not have been ts'd. If was insulting only here, was it a one time thing or habit? Who was this please.

[tangent90]

36. This from someone who called -my- post 'ignorant'??

Good to know irony isn't dead.

[polichick]

41. It's either ignorance or you're so busy being cute that you're not thinking.

[TheWraith]

53. So exercising personal choice makes you unpatriotic.

What the hell are you doing as a Democrat, again? Because apparently you learned the wrong lesson from the Republicans branding anyone and anything they disliked as "unpatriotic." I dislike huge SUVs too, but it's demagoguery of the worst kind to bash them as "unpatriotic." And in the course of it, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of the nature of political discourse in a free country.

[polichick]

65. It's you who "demonstrates a profound ignorance" - nowhere did I say...

...that "exercising personal choice makes you unpatriotic" ~ try yanking your head out of your ass and reading more carefully.

[TheWraith]

75. Yes, you did. Try reading your own messages.

You said that owning big SUVs, or opposing a ban on semi-auto rifles, is unpatriotic and a threat to national security.

[polichick]

78. Now you're closer to what I said, but still miss the important part...

It's that some personal choices put special interests over the well-being and security of the nation.

What Joe Biden said about more taxes for the wealthy addresses the same issue. Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

The same applies to others who have been putting their special interests ahead of what the country needs in order to be strong and safe ~ time to be patriotic enough to buy greener cars, to stop fighting a weapons ban that would make the streets and schools safer for cops, kids and everyone else, and to put healthy U.S. foreign relations ahead of Israel's wishes, etc.

Your initial response was rude and reactionary ~ which is often the problem when asking Americans to step out of their comfort zone for a higher purpose or the greater good. Few reporters even bothered to think about what Biden was saying ~ but being willing to sacrifice or step outside the comfort zone is where patriotism comes in.

[TheWraith]

169. Keep backpedaling... right to the point where you described it as "unpatriotic."

You still don't recognize that by defining "unpatriotic" as "not doing what I think should be done" you're mimicking what the Republicans did. It doesn't matter whether you disapprove of a choice, the fact is that you're trying to use a rhetorical bludgeon to define someone's free choice as being an absolute wrong.

And by the way, the statistics don't bear out that the AWB did anything to make anyone safer. Criminals don't use rifles. Period. Criminals use HANDGUNS. In 2007, New York State had 800 homicides with guns. Out of those, you know how many were rifles? Any kind of rifle, not just "assault weapons"? Twelve.

Handguns are fast, easy to use, concealable, and deniable. That's why they will ALWAYS be the preferred weapon of criminals.

[sendero]

83. You might as well have...

.. sorry, I loathe the NRA as much as you do but I BELEIVE IN GUN RIGHTS, PERIOD.

[polichick]

85. Oh wah - people who want the assault weapons ban for the good of the country...

...aren't trying to take away "gun rights." Sorry - time for EVERYONE to be patriotic.

[Mojorabbit]

97. I don't think an assault weapon

ban makes any difference one way or another for the good of the country. Full auto weapons are heavily regulated and I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the assault weapon ban as it was written before. Prohibition never works and only makes for a good black market.
None of this has anything to do with patriotism.

[polichick]

108. Well, I agree with the Pres. on this and I do think patriotism is involved when...

...we're willing to give up things for the good of the country.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

[Mojorabbit]

109. I love our new Prez

but I am on the opposite side of the fence on this issue. I'll go with the founding fathers on this one and once again state that law abiding citizens are not the problem. Enforcing laws on the book is the way to go, not penalizing citizens for the actions of a small minority.

[polichick]

112. I just don't believe an assault weapons ban penalizes anyone...

It's NRA propaganda that extends the right to bear arms to the right to own assault weapons.

[Mojorabbit]

121. I own them

and I feel differently. There are plenty of fine laws on the books right now. Enforce them.

[polichick]

126. Well, that's one of the big problems with America - everybody wants what they want....

...regardless of the cost to society. Sad ~ and unpatriotic imo.

It's very hard for police to enforce the laws when every Tom, Dick and Harry has assault weapons. Here in Philly we've lost far too many policemen and innocent children, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Mojorabbit]

130. The tens of thousands

of law abiding people who own assault weapons are no cost to society so your argument does not stand up. And please stop with the freeper unpatriotic shtick. It is childish at best.

[polichick]

134. There's nothing more "childish" than the irrational clinging to assault weapons...

...and, in doing so, turning your back on the reality of dead policemen and children all over America.

As the Vice President says about citizens doing their part, "It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." (Oh that Joe, he's such a freeper!)

Peace.

[Mojorabbit]

151. When you have to resort

to patriotism you have no argument. We just had an administration that threatened that we should watch what we say in violation of the first amendment and that it was a patriotic thing to do. Speaking out against the war was unpatriotic.
It is obvious you do not know the first thing about so called "assault" weapons. You are now just resorting to trolling and I have better things to do with my time. Peace.

[Edweird]

163. You are severely mistaken about that.

US v Miller

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

"these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." That would be what are currently being referred to "Assault Weapons".

D.C. v Heller

Decision

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<31> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<32>

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).



There it is, in black and white. Written by the Legislative Branch and interpreted by the Judicial Branch.

[hack89]

110. Like the Patriot Act?

wasn't that all about trading rights for security?

[polichick]

113. Only if you consider the perceived right to own assault weapons as fundamental.

[hack89]

122. That's what the second amendment says - so yes. nt

[polichick]

124. The second amendment speaks of "assault weapons?"

[hack89]

128. Don't play dumb

unless you are prepared to show me the words "privacy" and "abortion" in the Constitution.

The Second amendment speaks of arms - semi automatic rifles are arms.

[sendero]

101. Stupid laws...

.. will solve NOTHING. Nobody who would use a firearm to shoot someone is worried about a piddly weapons ban charge.

There are already millions and millions of these firearms out there. The ban can do nothing about that. Anyone who wants one can get one, just like anyone who wants cocaine, heroin, pot, oxycontin or any freaking thing else can get them.

What it WILL do is justify the (what should be) irrational fears of the gun nuts and give them an "I told you so" moment.

It will also lose votes for Dems over NOTHING.

[polichick]

106. President Obama disagrees...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

[Tejas]

133. So did Bill Clinton

So does that make both of them (and you) right, and approx 80 million law-abiding firearm owners wrong?

[polichick]

135. imo the difference is smart and caring presidents are trying to put the country first...

...while gun owners who fight against an assault weapons ban are interested in putting their habits first.

[Tejas]

138. gun owners "habits"

"imo the difference is smart and caring presidents are trying to put the country first...while gun owners who fight against an assault weapons ban are interested in putting their habits first."





Habits such as preserving life and limb? I have several shotguns in my home, all currently legal to purchase in this country (except for occupied states such as Kalifornia). Do you realize the current model of AWB proposed would render several of them a FELONY?

Are you one of those that, instead of enforcing current laws (all 20,000 of them) and actually doing something about crime, endorses "creating" new criminals with MORE "feel-good" laws?

I seriously don't think you know squat about the subject of firearms laws and the reckless abandon with which some are created.

[polichick]

149. Maybe you should write to President Obama and tell him he doesn't know squat...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

[Edweird]

164. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

If what happened in 1994 doesn't worry him, then the political backlash afterwards will be of his own doing.

[Mojorabbit]

12. I firmly

believe they intended that regular citizens be part of a militia if needed. The majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens and are not part of the problem in our society. It is not why I own weapons but I have great respect for our founding fathers and how they set our government up.

[treestar]

15. It did make sense in the 18th century

And on into the 19th.

then with the advent of nuclear weapons it does not seem as relevant. It is somewhat quaint. We could all take our guns to the park and get together if we thought we were going to be attacked from outside. But could that even happen now?

For hunting, there doesn't seem to be much problem. Plus I don't have a problem with it if people train themselves to use them and observe all safety rules if they really want one in case they are the victims of criminal attack. I just hate hearing those stories of kids who accidentally shoot their brothers.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the meaning of "militia" before

you post again and embarrass yourself further...


Thanks,

Ghost

[polichick]

29. You need to study your history before you embarrass yourself any further.

[Ghost in the Machine]

49. I know history.. and the wording of the Constitution...

I also know the definition of "militia"... do you?

[polichick]

66. What's important is the intent of the founders - but we both know that...

...and so does the NRA, in spite of all their propaganda.

[spin]

82. It seems the founding fathers were in favor of gun owenership...

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference . When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 746, § 1858.

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm

[polichick]

88. It's laughable to think that Jefferson et al imagined a nation full of assault weapons...

...and I've never argued against gun ownership.

[Ghost in the Machine]

92. Do you think that prolific inventors, like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, couldn't

imagine or foresee any kind of change in weapons, especially after the Revolutionary War, where they got to experience the limitations of a single shot, muzzle loading weapon?

We had a submarine in 1776, complete with an underwater bomb with a time delayed *flintlock* detonator..... you don't think they could imagine automatic weapons?

[polichick]

104. LOL - so you're suggesting that Jefferson imagined the society...

...we live in today and intended for his words to justify assault weapons on the streets.

Thanks for the Sunday morning chuckle!

[Ghost in the Machine]

114. You can move the goalposts all you want, but it doesn't change facts..

.. and you *still* haven't given your definition of "militia", which was what I responded to in the first place...


Jefferson's words intended just what they say... we have the right to keep and bear arms.. a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON...

[spin]

99. True, but it is was also laughable to think that...

the British colonies in America would be able to gain freedom from England at that time of the American revolution.

In 1775, war broke out between the British and the American colonists. By 1776, the colonists had declared their independence and after eight years of a prolonged and bloody war, in 1783 Britain was forced to recognize the independence of the United States. Many people never thought that the Americans would win the battle. Their chances of winning were very little at the beginning. The British should have won the Revolution easily because their government was the most powerful in the world at that time. But due to key American military victories and advantages, the British were defeated. There are certain inevitabilities about American success.First, there is the domestic enthusiasm in the United State. Americans went to war to defend the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty. It had only one objective to accomplish to win the Revolution, and that was to hold out until the end of the war.
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/6696.html

While a rebellion against an American government today would be difficult, remember that we have spend a considerable amount of money training soldiers to be very competent fighters and we have provided them with considerable experience in the skills of warfare.

The government would find it difficult to wage a war against a guerrilla force who had the support of a majority of the citizens. First any attempt to disarm Americans would be at the best extremely difficult as those in power would have to convince law enforcement and the military to kill fellow Americans merely to take way their weapons. I know many people in law enforcement and many veterans. A majority consider themselves "patriots" and are firm believers in the Second Amendment and the rights of a citizen to own weapons.

In several states there is already a movement to secede from the United States. A list can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_secession_proposals

So from a practical standpoint, the fact the citizens have the right to own firearms is a deterrent to any government turning tyrannical. Some of the founding fathers would have been amazed that the country they founded has went so long without a revolution.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson

Somehow I feel that the founding fathers would have been surprised at modern weapons technology but would have favored the right of citizens to own fully automatic weapons.

I personally have little problem with the current laws that restrict the ownership of full auto weapons but allow citizens to own semi-auto weapons including those called "assault weapons". An "assault weapon" is no more of a military assault rifle than a Corvette is a Formula One race car. Both cars may look fast but there is one hell of a difference.





Assault rifles were developed primarily to get a soldier to throw out lots of bullets in hope of hitting something.

Vietnam and a host of other dirty bush wars introduced the ambush concept of very high rates of fire, light ammunition and firepower. Ammunition had to be light, weapons cheap and easy to fix, and general tactics dictated spraying thousands of rounds during short firefights. The number of rounds per kill tripled from WWII levels to a staggering 50,000 rounds for each kill. In Vietnam, the light and deadly M-16 became the overwhelming choice of ground troops.
http://www.comebackalive.com/df/guns.htm


The most effective riflemen in the Vietnam conflict, the snipers, used a bolt action rife for "one shot one kill".




In the hands of a skilled individual, a bolt action or semi auto hunting rifle is as dangerous if not far more so than an "assault weapon". While the media constantly says "high powered assault weapon", the rifles they describe use a moderate power round. The AK-47 round, the 7.62 x 39mm is similar in power to a Winchester lever action 30-30 round.

By the way, I'm glad you are not against gun ownership. Your statement America's obsession with guns is pathological - and pathetic imo. misled me.

[polichick]

103. Apparently you missed the word "obsession" in my original post.

[spin]

125. The only people obsessed about guns are those who wish to ban them. (n/t)

[polichick]

127. imo those obsessed are the ones who insist that owning assault weapons...

...is their right, regardless of the cost to society.

By NRA standards it would be everyone's God-given right to drive armed tanks around town ~ maybe people could just mount guns on their big-ass SUVs. lol

[spin]

143. An "assault weapon" is merely an evil looking hunting rifle...

and usually not as powerful.

For example the Ruger Deerfield in .44 mag is considered a good brush country deer hunting weapon.


The Remington Model 7400 Synthetic Carbine comes in a wide range of calibers including the very powerful 30-06.


The Browning BAR is the most popular of all semi-automatic hunting rifles.


These three rifle operate the same as your dreaded "assault weapons". And while you might find it hard to believe many hunters use the AK 47 clones for hunting:

Since approximately 1990, the 7.62x39mm cartridge has seen some use in hunting arms in the US for hunting game up to the size of whitetail deer, as it is approximately as powerful as the old .30-30 Winchester round, and has a similar ballistic profile.<6> Large numbers of inexpensive imported semiautomatic rifles, like the SKS and AK-47 clones and variants, are available in this caliber. The SKS is so inexpensive as to have begun displacing the .30-30 lever-action rifles as the new "poor man's deer rifle" by being less expensive than the .30-30 Marlins and Winchesters that long held that role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm


SKS rifle


While the NRA does throw out a lot of propaganda, I think that your statement By NRA standards it would be everyone's God-given right to drive armed tanks around town. is a bit much.

Also, I don't get your total hatred of SUVs. If you have a large family they are almost essential. Many times my family has six or more people to transport.

[polichick]

146. Don't get me started on having large families with our population problems!

[Vanje]

152. Large families? Dont drive an unpatriotic large car.

Drive a compact, and make the little bastards run alongside!

[Thothmes]

166. At the end of the American Civil War

the Federal Ordnance departement calculated that it took 16 lbs. of lead bullets to kill a Confederate soldier. On Edit, these 16 lbs of lead bullets were fired by singe shot muzzle loading rifle muskets.

[friendly_iconoclast]

153. It's laughable to think that Jefferson et al imagined a nation full of Internet posters...

So is posting here "offensive and unpatriotic"?

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. What part of "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *NOT* be infringed"

don't you understand? Is it one specific word, or the whole sentence? Do we need to find some smaller words for you?

Let's look this over, for the sake of "intent":

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ok, let's look at the first part of this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Our Founding Fathers' "intent" *could* have been saying that 'since a well regulated milita (standing army) is necessary to ensure the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that they don't become endentured or enslaved by that *militia*. In other words, we, the people, needed to be able to defend ourselves at all times, even against our own government if necessary. If only the military and law enforcement had guns, it would be much easier for them to control and enslave us since we could not fight back.

Or it could have had something to do with King George III banning guns in an effort to stave off the revolution...

BTW, how's that deinition of "militia" coming along? Haven't found one? Here ya go:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
http://www.answers.com/library/Dictionary-cid-51788

From the same page:

US Military Dictionary: militia

n.
1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. **Ghost's note: This is how King George III justified his writs and disarmed the colonial public. *We* were considered rebels and/or terrorists.**

3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
http://www.answers.com/library/US+Military+Dictionary-cid-51788



Either way you slice it, our Founding Fathers *guaranteed* us the *right* to keep and bear arms. A Right that *shall not be infringed upon.... Period.

[polichick]

89. See post 88

[TheWraith]

54. Kindly provide your definition of "militia," please.

Because according to the law, the "unorganized militia" is defined as all able-bodied males 17-45 and all women in the National Guard.

[Incitatus]

72. No one said they did

but they wanted everyone to have that RIGHT

[polichick]

105. Sure, the right to own a gun - I don't believe they imagined their words...

...being used to justify the widespread acquisition of assault weapons. It's the clinging to that perceived "right" that I find offensive and unpatriotic.

[friendly_iconoclast]

159. Your shilling of the "terror, Terror, TERROR" meme (v 2.0) is offensive and unpatriotic

Wrapping yourself in the flag in order to violate the Constitution should be left
to Republicans, thank you very much.

The Bush Jong Il administration peddled the same kind of horseshit,
and your version smells no better.

[immoderate]

165. Someone else must have said this, well, anyway...

An assault weapon is essentially no different from the many rifles that you say are OK. The assault weapons ban prohibits certain accessories, which do not affect the firepower of the weapon. The AWB prohibits selling a rifle with spark arrestor, bayonet mount, pistol grip, and folding or skeletal stock. The capacity of magazines is limited, but not how many you can carry.

The rifle itself is unchanged. It's like outlawing racing stripes on cars because they are going too fast.

--imm

[DailyGrind51]

142. "Pack a gun" unloaded in a locked drawer where children and depressed relatives can't find it!

[treestar]

14. that makes it sound like a hobby

You could even just leave the guns at the range.

[Mojorabbit]

18. Well my husband hunts

and we also keep weapons for self protection. Multiple uses.

[TheWraith]

61. Hmm, tons of unattended guns in a known location, where people might not check on them

For weeks or even months at a time. Yeah, that's not at all tempting to criminals. :eyes:

[Sebastian Doyle]

69. That's why God created gun safes.

If you can't keep your weapons secure, then you probably shouldn't own any in the first place.

[TheWraith]

74. Gun safes would mean nothing in a gun-club environment.

Because unless you had one per person at a prohibitive cost, then the employees would have to have access to the safes. And as anyone will tell you, employees are generally the biggest theft threat to any business.

The central point being that, as some people say, "just leave your guns at the club" is a lot less responsible than taking actual care of them.

[Sebastian Doyle]

162. Well, since gun owners think of their weapons as a crime deterrent

you just let it be known that any employees known to steal weapons will be shot on sight. :evilgrin:

[treestar]

120. $$ for the security industrial complex

Built up since 2001

[DailyGrind51]

111. I have no issue with the "casual" gun owner, it's the ardent "Second Amendmentist" who scares me.

[Lorien]

115. Yep. We're a frightened Nation full of guys with very tiny penises

it's completely pathetic. Sadly, I doubt that we will ever evolve.

[Mojorabbit]

123. I will say again

whenever the penis thing comes up. I am a woman and I resent the inference that owning a weapon has anything to do with body parts and insecurities about them.

[Tejas]

136. Agreed

I would hope that you could expand on the subject sometime, maybe work it into a thread in the Gungeon perhaps. Since the only retorts to posts like Lorien just pulled out of his *** are usually from us guys, I'm sure it would be interesting to read viewpoints from a female perspective.

[frogcycle]

4. "This was asked somewhere else."

Is that supposed to be a rationalization for posting a patently absurd "poll" ??

Is the moon made of green cheese?

Does the world ride on the back of a turtle?

[Posteritatis]

8. Duh, of course not. Every thinking man knows it rides on the back of an alpaca. (nt)

[TheWraith]

62. Alpacaite heretic!

You will be slowly digested in the stomache of Great A'Tuin the World Turtle!

[stray cat]

5. Of course not - but a bumpersticker saying peace probably won't solve much either

[polichick]

9. However, peaceful solutions ARE the way to go.

[RedCappedBandit]

17. No, but living the message of the bumper sticker solves quite a lot

[TahitiNut]

11. Of course not. It's hitting what you shoot at. (I thought everyone knew that.)

:hide:

[treestar]

13. In the 19th century west it probably was necessary for self defense

The same could be said now - the only way I'd bother is if I lived in the middle of a rural area with no neighbors close by and thought that if attacked, just calling 911 would not be sufficient.

[RedCappedBandit]

16. Violence solves nothing

unless you're defending yourself.

[uppityperson]

19. My floors have dog hair on them. Should I shoot them?

My garden needs manuring before I plant. Maybe I should shoot it first.
A patient at work has pneumonia. Maybe he should be shot rather than taking antibiotics.
I got cold french fries at McD's. Maybe I should shoot the counter person.

Or did they mean just shooting a gun, not a person or thing? Hmmm.

I don't have time to manure my garden or vacuum my floors so I should shoot a gun.
A patient at work has pneumonia so he should shoot a gun.
I got cold french fries at McD's so both the counter person and I should shoot a gun.

Questions: How does one "shoot a gun"? What do you shoot a gun with? Is the gun usable after shooting it or is that the purpose, to destroy guns and take them out of the public system?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Please don't shoot your dogs.

[uppityperson]

93. No way. I won't shoot my garden either.

sometimes I wonder if my kid takes after me, or vice versa. We both rant extemporaneously.

[tangent90]

21. It's a very good solution to the problem of a home invasion.

Don't you think your poll is a little bit...uh, idiotic?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

27. Shooting a gun is the solution to every problem.

Well, unless you have a problem shooting guns too frequently.

:sarcasm:

[H2O Man]

33. other

[TahitiNut]

40. Knives?

:rofl: :rofl:

[alfredo]

42. Freepers: use your gun to solve your problems. Stick it in you mouth

and pull the trigger. Poof! all your problems solved.

[Noodleboy13]

45. Yes. If all your problems are Zombies. n/t

[madokie]

47. The trouble really gets started when the guns are pulled out

when they're being fired it's already too late for cooler heads to prevail

[alarimer]

50. No. It's only a solution when someone is pointing a gun at YOU.

Or a loved one.

Other than that, it's complete overkill.

[NaturalHigh]

51. Of course not...

but if someone is trying to break into my house, it will be a quick solution to that problem.

[Judi Lynn]

52. If you don't lock this thread, someone could get hurt.

http://img.photobucket.com.nyud.net:8090/albums/v323/simon1801/allmyfavthings.jpg

[Renew Deal]

71. lol

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Can you post a picture warning?

I lose important stuff when I have to delete that much memory.

David

[uppityperson]

94. OW! my eyes!

[tigereye]

55. I hate guns

I wish they would all magically disappear.

[EstimatedProphet]

57. I love guns!

I wish I could have them all!

[tigereye]

63. yup, they are tons of fun...

everyone should have several, no doubt.

[EstimatedProphet]

64. I do!

:)

[Squatch]

91. Me too! And I'm buying more!

[gratuitous]

56. Why are you questioning our national religion?

The High Church of Redemptive Violence will be visiting you soon, you heathen.

[polichick]

67. LOL - it's at least as ridiculous as the other religions. :)

[EstimatedProphet]

58. Of course. For example, I had a flat tire, and I shot my gun. It fixed itself.

Really, this is just a ridiculous question.

[Stevenmarc]

59. Well if I wouldn't end up being someones prison bitch, it might be an option.

[Quantess]

60. Hell yes! Shooting a gun is the solution to every problem!

[Judi Lynn]

98. May I compliment you on the image? Impeccable. n/t

[keroro gunsou]

68. depends

on where the bullet comes out.

[Renew Deal]

70. Well, I didn't expect this thread to be so interesting.

But DU doesn't disappoint. Hopefully everyone learns something from each other.

[Incitatus]

73. It is a last resort

and sometimes something that HAS to be done

[Baikonour]

76. A gun's sole purpose is to kill.

I still don't understand the rationale for their existence in the 21st century. Bill of Rights notwithstanding.

I guess I'm just an anti-American hippie.

:shrug:

[rucky]

77. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this quandry.

maybe not tonight, but someday.

[madinmaryland]

80. So you bring a gun story into GD. Now all of the gun freaks

are going to come out and aim their six shooters at you.

:wtf:

[spin]

87. Most of the "gun freaks" who post here seem more polite,

rational, calmer and far less threatening than the anti-gun contingent.

Maybe there is some truth in the statement that "An armed society is a polite society."

[TWiley]

119. Why is Iraq not a polite society? Al Queda is not polite, and neither is the KKK

[spin]

132. Simple, in both cases you have religion involved...

The Klan is primarily composed of conservative Protestant Christians.

The KKK acts against any group they feel are causing harm to America; including African Americans, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, and anyone who supports such 'evil and dangerous elements'. They are a fraternity of white supremacists who believe in direct action, usually violent.

*******snip*******

The KKK see themselves as Good, Upstanding, All American Patriotic Christians and claim that lighting the cross is a symbol of their faith. The fire signifies Christ as the light of the world. Light drives away darkness and gloom. Fire cleanses and purifies.
http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/burning.html



Let's not forget that Al-Qaeda is Sunni Islam, and Iran is Shi'ite Islam, throw in the plethora of tribal loyalties in Iraq alone, mix in the intervention of Iran and Syria, add the continuous incitement of the various political/ideological agendas that lies at the core of radical Islam, and we have the chaos of what is Iraq today. However, what we need to realize is that the cycle of tribal warfare and of deteriorating urban life that began in the thirteenth century (much more here) with the Mongol invasions, is depicted every day on our TV screens by cable news.
http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2006/11/archaic_tribal_warfare_in_iraq.php

When you believe that you are fighting for God or Allah, you tend not to be polite and considerate to those who don't believe as you do.

[TWiley]

141. I believe that guns, religion, and conservative politics is always a disaster

However, why is the gun not a strong enough influence to make these groups polite?

[spin]

145. Because their extreme brand of religion teaches them that it is ...

OK to kill in the name of their deity. Guns are efficient killing weapons.

Religious belief can override common sense, logic and civilized behavior.

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. Are gun freaks like abortion freaks or speech freaks?

Do tell!

[Random_Australian]

90. Shooting indeed solves anything. The other day, I wasn't sure what I wanted for dinner.

So I fired up the good old bazooka, and shortly after I decided. Of course, the scoffers will put this down to coincidence.

[guardian]

95. stupid poll question

The premise of the the question is ridiculous. It makes no more sense than asking if "Does eating vanilla ice cream solve every problem."

[Renew Deal]

167. It is ridiculous

And it's meant to be. But somehow it inspires people. I don't totally get it. I think people sometimes argue because they can. If someone posted "the sun will rise in the morning", they'd get 50 responses disputing or criticizing the statement.

[scrinmaster]

96. Not every problem.

But you're a fool if you thing they can't solve some problems.

[bertman]

100. To answer the OP's question: No, sometimes tossing a grenade is more effective.

.

And thanks to Spin and Ghost in the Machine for the historical background on the 2nd amendment and its importance to personal freedom.

[TWiley]

118. Linoleum-Blown-Apart if tossed into a French Kitchen

[JVS]

107. Does the Pope shit in the woods?

[TWiley]

117. is the turd worshipped?

[TWiley]

116. How about when the NRA shoots off its mouth?

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. I tried that with my math teacher.

Problem #24 was quite vexing. I asked him "ya feelin lucky, punk?"

He was. Turns out, remedial math was more my style.

[upi402]

139. it depends on how entrenched and serious/threatening the problem n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. I don't know. Is bubble wrap impervious to gunfire?

It seems immune to every other way of opening it without injury to one's physical and/or mental health.

[anonymous171]

150. No. Ban all guns, knives, and forms of inflammatory speech. nt

[neverforget]

154. I thought tax cuts were the solution to every problem.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

157. When shooting amimals feeds the family, yes.

[yurbud]

158. when nuns are outlawed, only the outlaws will be nuns.

[BlooInBloo]

161. I recently solve a complex hydrodynamics variation problem with a gun....

I shot the paper. Done.

So I would say: Yes, a gun really CAN solve every problem.

:P

[Maru Kitteh]

168. I wish you had an option for SELDOM. It is seldom an acceptable solution

But yes, sometimes it is most definitely a solution.